Quote:
Originally Posted by njbchbum
ijusluvit - i have followed your posts and am having a hard time finding out where you have cited any facts from the case - could you please point them out again? thanx
|
A couple of other posters say I'm not using factual information to make my case that there is a flaw in the system.
As I write this, CNN is conducting the first interview with Juror B-37 in the case. She has cited the same three facts I cited in my posts.
1) George Zimmerman decided to confront the person he saw. "He never should have gotten out of his car that evening."
2) GZ should have acted in a more "responsible way" since he was armed.
3) GZ had every right to carry a gun, "just like everyone".
The juror, who admits she favored a 'not guilty' verdict from the beginning, couldn't have put her finger on the system flaw any better. She admits the jury essentially ignored facts #1 & 2 because they had to follow Florida laws.
In my opinion, what Florida obscures through it's laws, including 'stand your ground' is the RESPONSIBILITY armed people have to use a higher level of good judgement while they are armed. I again liken it to the 'rule' that guns should be securely locked away especially in homes where there are children. If things go wrong when the facts are like those stated above, the armed person should not be able to walk away with NO RESPONSIBILITY for the incident. If someone leaves a gun unsecured and someone is killed or injured by it, the gun owner should not be able to walk away with NO RESPONSIBILITY for the incident.
Hopefully my conclusion and the facts I've cited to support it are now clear to you.